Rashu Munda vs State Of Tripura

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in case no. S.T. (T-1) 34 of 2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 (four) year for committing an offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC.

Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing for the respondent.

The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that one complaint was lodged by Surendra Munda stating inter alia that his father Luanga Munda was killed by his brother, Rashu Munda, who was the uncle of the complainant. It was stated in the complaint that both, his father and his uncle, suddenly entered into an altercation, being in intoxicated stage and, at that time, Rashu Munda had suddenly hit the head of his father, Luanga Munda by a hard branch of a teak tree for which his father received grievous injury on his head. Many villagers had rushed to the spot. The wife and son of Luanga Munda were informed about the incident and, they also had rushed to the spot and found Luanga Munda in a dying stage. On the way to the hospital, Luanga Munda had succumbed to his injury.

Pursuant thereto, the Officer-in-Charge of Panisagar police station had registered an FIR vide Panisagar PS case no. 06 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC and, accordingly investigation had commenced. In course of investigation, the investigating officer had recorded the statement of the witnesses, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer (PW-9) submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Since the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, wherein the case was registered as case No. S.T. (T-1) 34 of 2014.

The learned Sessions Judge has framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 11 witnesses and also introduced 16 documentary evidences including post-mortem report (Exhibit-8) and TSFSL report (Exhibit-15). After completion of recording of evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. when he denied all the incriminating evidences and claimed to be tried.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar returned the findings that the appellant is not guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Since Luanga Munda, the deceased, entered into a sudden altercation without any pre-meditation, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years.

Mr. Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the material evidence to declare the sentence and, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. According to Mr. Bhowmik, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the medical evidence also did not support the case of the prosecution.

On the other hand, Mr. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor defending the judgment of conviction and sentence has submitted that the case is well-proved as there are three eye-witnesses to the incident, namely, Brajalal Tripura (PW-2), Lalita Tripura (PW-3) and Pratap Tripura (PW-8). Mr. Debnath, has further submitted that the medical report has established the fact that the deceased was killed due to deadly hit by the application of blunt force at the back side of his head.

I have considered the rival submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis and, also have perused the material documents.

Keeping in view the submission of learned Additional PP, I have taken note of the evidence of PW-2, Brajalal Tripura. In his deposition, PW-2 has stated that Rashu Munda killed Luanga Munda on 31.01.2014 in the courtyard of his house at 6.00 pm with a log of segun tree. At that time PW-2 was having his meal in his kitchen. All on a sudden, his wife, Lalita Tripura started crying and he came out of the kitchen and saw Rashu Munda and Luanga Munda were quarreling with each other. His wife had intervened and tried to prevent them from fighting. PW-2 further deposed that in her effort to prevent the fighting, his wife Lalita Tripura also received a blow on her shoulder. The log was in the hand of Rashu Munda. Suddenly, Rashu Munda hit Luanga Munda on his head and due to this Luanga Munda fell down on the earth. PW-2 had raised hue and cry when other neighbours appeared and he called Surendra Munda, son of Luanga Munda. On the way to hospital, Luanga Munda died.

PW-3, Lalita Tripura, is the wife of PW-2. She deposed that on 31.01.2014 at about 6.00 pm, Rashu Munda and Luanga Munda started hot altercation between themselves and suddenly Rashu Munda picked up a log of segun tree from road side and hit Luanga Munda. She further deposed that while she was trying to prevent them, she also received a blow on her shoulder. Due to the hit of Rashu Munda on the head of Luanga Munda, Luanga Munda fell down on the ground and, later on he died.

PW-8, Pratap Tripura had deposed that while he was having dinner inside the kitchen of their house, he suddenly heard sound from outside and, when he came out, he saw Rashu Munda had almost finished beating Luanga Munda and he saw the wooden pile in the hand of Rashu Munda and by that time Luanga Munda fell down on the ground.

Next, I have perused the post-mortem report. PW-5, Dr. Rajat Goswami was the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 01.02.2014 and opined that death of Luanga Munda was due to neuregenic shock as a result of intra-cerebral hemorrhage because of application of blunt force over the back of the head region. The death was homicidal in nature and he has identified his report which has been marked as Exhibit-8.

PW-11, Dr. Suvankar Nath was a forensic expert in the Department of TSFSL. He deposed that the weapon of offence i.e. branch of segun tree was blood stained, and after comparing the blood group of the deceased and the blood stain on the said branch of tree, it was found to be same.

On the basis of the aforesaid statements and evidence of the witnesses, I find force in the submission of learned Additional PP that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8 are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-3 even suffered injuries due to the hit at the same time when she was trying to prevent Rashu Munda from assaulting Luanga Munda. The post-mortem report clearly establishes the fact that the branch of tree, which was seized by the investigating officer in course of investigation was used as weapon of offence by Rashu Munda, the appellant herein. PW-5, the doctor has categorically deposed that the injury caused to the backside of the head was possible by way of hitting by the said branch of tree. He has categorically stated in his report that "the death was due to neuregenic shock as a result of intra-cerebral hemorrhage because of application of blunt force over the back of the head region". PW-11, the scientific expert also found similar blood group on the weapon of offence with the sample of blood of the deceased.

In my opinion, in the instant case, there is direct evidence against the accused-appellant. PW-1 and PW-4 have corroborated the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8. PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 are the formal witnesses of seizure. PW-9, Sri Suresh Debbarma, is the investigating officer who in course of investigation has collected the blood stained weapon of offence i.e. branch of tree and the soil. He also had arranged for examination of the seized articles. The inquest report of the dead body was prepared at the spot. He also had collected the post-mortem report as well as the TSFSL report.

I have stated earlier that the instant case is a case of direct evidence. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8 are the eye witnesses. They had seen the appellant to give a blow on the head of the deceased and, due to that blow, the deceased Luanga Munda had died. However, it is apparent from the nature of evidence that Rashu Munda, the appellant herein, had no intention to kill Luanga Munda. The said hit was not a pre-planned one and there was no pre-meditation. Both the deceased and the appellant were in intoxicated condition and there was an altercation between them and, suddenly Rashu Munda had brought out a branch of segun tree which was lying on the roadside of the courtyard of PW-2 and, by that branch of tree, he gave a blow on the head of Luanga Munda, but, the extent of that blow appeared to be fatal and enough to kill Luanga Munda. The blow was on the vital part of the body being the backside of the head of the deceased. Since it has come to the fore that both the appellant and the deceased were in intoxicated condition and the appellant had given the blow in a sudden provocation, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant should be upheld. However, considering the gravity of offence, I am inclined to reduce the period of sentence, as imposed by the trial court.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is modified and is reduced to 2(two) years from 4(four) years. It is also made clear that the period of sentence of imprisonment, the appellant has already undergone shall be set off.

In the result the instant appeal stands allowed in part, in the above terms. Send down the LCRs forthwith.

The appellant shall surrender within a period of 3(three) weeks, otherwise, the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar will issue necessary warrant upon the appellant, Rashu Munda to serve out the remaining period of sentence, as indicated above of this judgment.